Ad
related to: tail coverage liability personally based on employment law cases
Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), is a landmark employment law case of the United States Supreme Court holding that employers are liable if supervisors create a hostile work environment for employees. [1]
Walkovszky v. Carlton, 223 N.E.2d 6 (N.Y. 1966), [1] is a United States corporate law decision on the conditions under which Courts may pierce the corporate veil.A cab company had shielded itself from liability by incorporating each cab as its own corporation.
Coverage does not include criminal prosecution, nor all forms of legal liability under civil law, only those specifically enumerated in the policy. Unlike general liability coverage, professional liability coverage extends coverage for acts that are intentional, so long as the damages caused were not intentional. [1]
Employment practices liability is an area of United States labor law that deals with wrongful termination, sexual harassment, discrimination, invasion of privacy, false imprisonment, breach of contract, emotional distress, and wage and hour law violations. It may be categorized as a form of professional liability.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), is a landmark United States Supreme Court [1] decision in which the Court held that the Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to extend the Fair Labor Standards Act, which requires that employers provide minimum wage and overtime pay to their employees, to state and local governments. [2]
Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8 is a UK labour law case, concerning unfair dismissal, now governed by the Employment Rights Act 1996.. The phrase 'Polkey deduction' has become a standard concept in UK Employment Tribunals, as a result of this case and later ones, meaning that even if a Tribunal decides a dismissal was unfair, it must separately decide whether the compensatory ...
The contemporary rationale of employers' vicarious liability is as applicable to this new wrong as it is to common law torts. 28. Take a case where an employee, in the course of his employment, harasses a non-employee, such as a customer of the employer. In such a case the employer would be liable if his employee had assaulted the customer.
Directors and officers liability insurance (also written directors' and officers' liability insurance; [1] often called D&O) is liability insurance payable to the directors and officers of a company, or to the organization itself, as indemnification (reimbursement) for losses or advancement of defense costs in the event an insured suffers such a loss as a result of a legal action brought for ...
Ad
related to: tail coverage liability personally based on employment law cases